Nuke Fatigue & the 2020 Tokyo Olympics

People and the media in Japan would rather talk about something else, like the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, as they look past the still unfolding nuclear crisis in Fukushima.

Sure, I agree. It's about time that the government finally takes charge of the plant's cleanup, instead of leaving it up to the clueless suits at Tepco. At this stage, Tepco has no credibility in Japan. Over and over again, company has shown no ability to get the plant fully under control. Tepco has no track record of releasing information in a timely manner. After the leaks of contaminated water into the ocean were discovered in July, Tepco belatedly announced in August that 300 tons of water laced with radioactive strontium had drained from a faulty tank.

Just because the government is taking over the cleanup job doesn't mean the government is more capable of managing this complex crisis. Among the worries is a plan to build a so-called "ice wall," a subterranean wall of ground frozen by liquid coolant.

So far, I've heard no skeptics in Japan questioning the science and long-term viability of the technology behind the proposed ice wall -- especially on NHK, Japan's public broadcaster.

'Risky experiment'
In the program, Arjun Makhijani, an engineer specializing in nuclear fusion and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, called the proposed ice wall scheme "a risky experiment."

Makhijani explained that the Japanese "hope to freeze the soil, basically, with a giant freezing machine, just like your freezer at home, [to] put cooling coils in the soil, lots and lots of them." He pointed out that this scheme "takes an enormous amount of electricity." That is just what the Fujushima nuclear plant can't do.

The biggest worry is potential power failures. Makhijani said:

…if the power fails, you know, just like if your -- when the power goes out with your refrigerator, everything will de-freeze in -- defrost in the freezer.

Even though ice wall technology had been used frequently to stabilize the ground in big construction projects, like the Big Dig highway project in Boston, The New York Times pointed out that some critics are dubious.

They argue that it's a costly technology "that would be vulnerable at the blackout-prone plant because it relies on electricity the way a freezer does, and even more so because it has never been tried on the vast scale that Japan is envisioning and was always considered a temporary measure, while at Fukushima it would have to endure possibly for decades."

This may not sound patriotic. But I almost hope the international community will turn its back on Japan, denying it the 2020 Olympics. Abe's claim that Fukushima will be resolved before 2020 is best interpreted as wishful thinking aimed at winning the next election. (Abe's party is known as a pro-nuclear party, which just won a landslide election.)

At worst, the Japanese prime minister's rosy outlook is an intentionally deceptive and misleading claim, especially cruel to the people in Fukushima who still hang on to their dream of returning to their nuked homes.

Reality bite: Today, 27 years after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl -- besides Fukushima, the only other Level 7 nuke accident in history -- an area 20 miles around the sealed Chernobyl plant remains a radioactive No Man's Land.

"... it does indicate that the liquid stored in these tanks are highly radioactive. No?"

Yes, it seems very likely that this measurement is representative of the radiation level of the water stored in the tanks, which would certainly make it highly radioactive in terms of beta radiation (but not - as would be assumed from most reporting on this topic - in terms of the more worrisome gamma radiation with its much higher potential for biologic damage).

hey mohovO, maybe one design lesson from the disaster is: Don't put critical backup-generators in the basement if you're building a nuclear power station near an ocean. No matter how high you build those water barriers, you're asking for trouble.

Thanks for the link to Tepco's press release. Although the figure of 1,800 mSv/h may not represent the radiation level of "the whole area", as Tepco says in its own release, it does indicate that the liquid stored in these tanks are highly radioactive. No?

Rich, thanks for the corrections. Much appreciated. I misheard the number of those who died among 6,000 who got thyroid cancer in Chernobyl (i was watching the video clip in a noisy place). I apologize.

It's certainly true that TEPCO has done a poor job (to say the least) at releasing information in a clear and useful manner. For example, in the case of the reported radiation level of 1800mSv/hr, it appears it was a measurement taken from about 5 cm above a water puddle near one of the tanks. The reading at a distance of 50 cm was only 15 mSv/h. In addition, this radiation was almost entirely beta (as opposed to gamma) radiation, which can be easily blocked and/or safely avoided by maintaining a distance. The reports that the radiation measured in this case constituted a "lethal dose" were erroneous.

I believe the WHO health risk assessment report was released early this year, and was based on data from a 2012 report. (It is true that this is before the latest radiation leaks, but there is no indication that anyone has seen increased exposure as a result of the latest leaks.) The increased risks for those living in the most affected area are statistical over a lifetime, and mostly apply to those exposed as infants.

The accident at Chernobyl was far worse, and, unlike at Fukushima, some of the workers at the plant did die as a result of radiation exposure. And of the 6,000 cases of thyroid cancers in the population living in affected areas - a result of mothers unknowingly feeding their children milk contaminated with high levels of radioactive iodine - there were "perhaps 15" people who had died.

And one more thing. What we know and what we don't know, so far, is pretty much dependent on what information Tepco and the Japanese government have released -- especially when it comes to the latest contaminated water leakage.

There was a report earlier this summer that says that radiation levels near one of the tanks were 1,800 millisieverts per hour. As Arjun Makhijani, a nucler scientist, points out, "This is an extremely high level of radiation. A few hours basically constitutes a lethal dose."

Why was this not reported sooner?

According to Tepco, they did the first measurement with an instrument that only went up to a hundred millisieverts and maxed.

Well, your science is only as good as your test and measurement tools, isn't it?

Hi, Rich. I don't think I disagree with you on the basic science. But where we disagree is our interpretation of the science.

For example, I did take a look at the WHO's report. I take a particular note that this was issued in May 2012 based on data made available in 2011.

Indeed, it says that there is no big health risks outside Japan, but the report does point out an increased lifetime risk for thyroid cancers in certain age & sex groups in the areas most affected.

Now, I also want to point out that this was all reported before the radioactive water leaks were discovered.You may say that this is also no big deal because the ice wall will stop it. But first, the ice wall is not even built yet. Second, how this will actually work on a massive scale and a long duration Fukushima is planning on remains unproven.

I don't want to be the one to do so-called fear mongering, but for those who work at the nuclear power plant in Fukushima and for those who live in the affected area, there is not much comfort in knowing "only 50 died out of 6,000 affected in Chernobyl" as told by one of the scientists in the video clip: Fukushima and Chernobyl: Myth versus Reality

All those questions you raised in your comment -- in regards to preventive maintenance electronics technology that could ensure the Tokyo Olympics -- are good ones. We will be surely following them up. Thanks, again.